ViperOverLord wrote:I think it's a mistake to minimize this debate to a matter of margins on the performance of potential CDs. The community as a whole that gets to vote for who represents them on important matters, gets respect out of the gate and that sets a proper tone.

Clans already get to vote on who represents them. thats the CDF.

CC gets to choose who represents them & they have delegated that role to the current CD leader.

This is truly an oversimplification. The CDs operate quite independently of admin upon oh so many issues. That's not to say that admin relinquishes any rights. But, the clan world tends to be on an island relative to admin. I'm sure somebody will have some technical cogs to throw into my argument; but there's no doubt in my mind that the CDs enjoy a great deal of autonomy.

TheMissionary wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:I've killed nothing. You tried to give a hypothetical of an elected volunteer doing worse than an appointed volunteer. And I really don't get your point. I believe that the clan leaders are more than capable of selecting adequate CDs. Hence, my point that there's no need to focus upon the "margins."

And whether elected or appointed, CDs will still be volunteers. Elected CDs will not have less dedication. And if they're bad, then that's the beauty of the system. We can replace them. If a CD is bad now, we have no such recourse.

"Edit: Is someone appointed to a position really going to put in as much effort per-say, as a person who is willing to give up their own time willingly?" WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT. ARE YOU DRUNK? An appointed person gives up their time willingly. An elected person gives up their time willingly. You keep going off the rails like that. So, time for me to take a break.

Elected people are usually nominated. If we can't get rid of the CDs now, what makes you so sure that we would be able to get rid of elected CDs? Wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of your process? Basically what killed your argument, is the fact that you are willing to take an opportunity from a new set of volunteers, and place that in the hands of elected/nominated people.

As for being drunk, I have been up for almost 24 hours. Does that make you wonder, how I can still see the fallacies you bring to your arguments?

Well, let's just say that you were up for nearly 24 hours explains some of your incoherent statements/questions as well as some inconsistencies. Contrary to your claim, I've not fallaciously spoken to any significant degree though.

As for 'being sure' of 'getting rid of elected CDs;' you haven't listed a clear premise for such a matter. I've pointed out that if the clan community decides, then they take ownership of their system. I haven't argued for 'getting rid' of anyone (other than to state that the community would have power to vote out a CD). I've stated that clans will have the power to choose who they feel will serve the community.

Leehar wrote:Well stated. I was thinking of addressing it from the point of view that none of the current cd's are in top 5 clans (With ace unranked, osa 9th & legion 25th, or coaches poll 10th/12th/unranked respectively) but your perspective was a trifle different. Although I did think it may have been somewhat weighted with a reference on masli, but non on jpcloet/alt1978/shaneback as other previous cd's that were also not up there.However, I think the point I really wanted to address was the fashion in which he was throwing about aspersions like 'elitist' & 'inner circle' when referencing the CD. I was hoping to perhaps tackle any misapprehensions he may have been under in perhaps somehow assuming great conspiracies exist when nothing could be further from the truth.

Nonetheless, it was something I deliberately sought to encourage with the most recent callout, to have a frank look at prospective candidates from new & lower ranked clans. Unfortunately, such a search is also hindered by the fact that they don't always have the skills & experience of the clan world to ably assist. So while it is important to increase our independence & build confidence from amongst clans & other stakeholders, I also think that the CD's are also here to perform a bureaucratic role in performing our roles & responsibilities.That being said, I think quite a few candidates who fulfill those requirements made our shortlist, and were viable prospects to meet our needs.

Anyway, I'll be opening a discussion in CDF on this topic, as Vipers vigorous campaigning has not gone unheard!

A quick point, BW was the head CD of the number one ranked clan during the time of the CC4 madness and Empire was something like top 3ish before the split. Most definitely, the CDs have recently been representative of a top clan class.

But, I think I should clarify that I don't want to be on a crusade against top clans (I hope to have a top clan someday). Nor do I want appear to even be for quotas of CDs based upon rankings. In theory, five CD from top five clans could work out just fine. My point though, has been that that there did seem to be some significant insider improprieties during CC4 and there was a strong element of it going in favor of the higher ranked clans in general while many mid ranked and lower ranked clans felt disenfranchised. I feel like elections is the best way to keep CDs a bit more honest and transparent and to keep all of the clans a bit more engaged.

And Leehar; I could dig-up the comments. Elitist and inner circle are perfect words and are not merely aspersions, despite your attempt wave it away with your magic wand when you say "nothing could be further from the truth." When we were having the CC4 discussions and the vote was canceled; we were hit with a wave of alleged objections from the top clans that the CDs represented through an intermediary fashion. They did not even have be a part of the discussion on the boards. They just had to work through you guys behind the scene and that was patently clear. Also, CDs even went so far as to state that of course higher ranked clans should have more clout regarding decisions. So, don't pretend that elitism is not prevalent because it most certainly is.

As for your general objections to current lower ranked clan candidates, they seem to be not specifically listed. Experience? What do you mean exactly? I would assume that most candidates don't exactly have spot-on experience and are attempting to be CDs for the first time. Skills? What skills exactly do you require? This is really all a tangent to my overarching call for elections though. It could be that the community could have the same concerns during an election process and that lower ranked clans would not gain the representation. But, really the ranking element is being overplayed anyhow. Again, it's about building trust, not meeting artificial quotas.

Last edited by ViperOverLord on Thu Sep 19, 2013 3:21 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Well, I have been reading this whole argument and facepalming. (I did skip a bunch of repetitive essays though)

As a person who has been on a small team of supermoderators running a pretty active site, i will say that any form of forum elections is a BAD BAD BAD idea. People who are nominated by the current site team on any site are usually the right people for the job. Yes of course there is the odd chance that they can get it wrong, but that comes with being human.

Having any kind of election for positions of responsiblity on a forum site is a no no. People are going to vote for their friends and clanmates. There is pressure on people to vote for their friends in any kind of popularity contest. That's what it WILL turn into, I'm sorry... a popularity contest. What accompanies every forum popularity contest? Yes, you've guessed it, drama, and lots of it.

A team needs to gel in order to work together. They need to be unbiased people who are active and willing to spend their time doing stuff for the site. That's why, under the current system, people who spend a lot of time and show themselves to be unbiased and don't cause trouble are picked. Some of you hate the current CDs because you disagreed with some of their past decisions. Having elected CDs will only pose greater problems. People will be railroaded into doing the bidding of their own clans and shit like that. I see so much wrong with it.

Some of you who are for elections have never worked on any kind of team online, so you have no idea how things work from the backend. It is a very different ball game when you are on the other side of the fence tying to please everyone but knowing full well that whatever decision you make is going to end up with one side in that particular scuffle being butthurt. Electing people will not make clan people nicer. You lot are ruthless and unforgiving of the staff who do so much for CC. Although, I speak of probably a handful of people when I say that.

I wouldn't take this position if I was paid because I know I wouldn't be able to please everyone. Never before have I seen it on a site that a group of people can attack volunteers so harshly and ruthlessly, and get away with it.

Shannon Apple wrote:Well, I have been reading this whole argument and facepalming. (I did skip a bunch of repetitive essays though)

As a person who has been on a small team of supermoderators running a pretty active site, i will say that any form of forum elections is a BAD BAD BAD idea. People who are nominated by the current site team on any site are usually the right people for the job. Yes of course there is the odd chance that they can get it wrong, but that comes with being human.

Having any kind of election for positions of responsiblity on a forum site is a no no. People are going to vote for their friends and clanmates. There is pressure on people to vote for their friends in any kind of popularity contest. That's what it WILL turn into, I'm sorry... a popularity contest. What accompanies every forum popularity contest? Yes, you've guessed it, drama, and lots of it.

A team needs to gel in order to work together. They need to be unbiased people who are active and willing to spend their time doing stuff for the site. That's why, under the current system, people who spend a lot of time and show themselves to be unbiased and don't cause trouble are picked. Some of you hate the current CDs because you disagreed with some of their past decisions. Having elected CDs will only pose greater problems. People will be railroaded into doing the bidding of their own clans and shit like that. I see so much wrong with it.

Some of you who are for elections have never worked on any kind of team online, so you have no idea how things work from the backend. It is a very different ball game when you are on the other side of the fence tying to please everyone but knowing full well that whatever decision you make is going to end up with one side in that particular scuffle being butthurt. Electing people will not make clan people nicer. You lot are ruthless and unforgiving of the staff who do so much for CC. Although, I speak of probably a handful of people when I say that.

I wouldn't take this position if I was paid because I know I wouldn't be able to please everyone. Never before have I seen it on a site that a group of people can attack volunteers so harshly and ruthlessly, and get away with it.

2013-11-13 11:47:40 - NapoleonTanerite [team]: "We will forgive your forgetting to use the troops in Turkey." It's hard to think with an erection, which I bet TM had!

I'll note that you were among those complaining about the insider politics. But, when someone tries to come up with a system, you ultimately uphold the status quo. That's fine. Do nothing now. But, if you don't want real change, then your complaints ring hollow.

Shannon Apple wrote:Having any kind of election for positions of responsiblity on a forum site is a no no. People are going to vote for their friends and clanmates. There is pressure on people to vote for their friends in any kind of popularity contest. That's what it WILL turn into, I'm sorry... a popularity contest. What accompanies every forum popularity contest? Yes, you've guessed it, drama, and lots of it.

Except, that it's not a no, no. And I'm very familiar with people's tribal nature during argument. That seems to be the constant de-evolution that I face when I bring up ideas to change the system. But, if the vote is constricted to one clan, one vote in the CDF then that's a limited concern. I think that clan leaders in general want the best man for the job; or at least someone who they feel can perform the job adequately. At the very least, that's going to be an over-riding concern.

Shannon Apple wrote:A team needs to gel in order to work together. They need to be unbiased people who are active and willing to spend their time doing stuff for the site. That's why, under the current system, people who spend a lot of time and show themselves to be unbiased and don't cause trouble are picked. Some of you hate the current CDs because you disagreed with some of their past decisions. Having elected CDs will only pose greater problems. People will be railroaded into doing the bidding of their own clans and shit like that. I see so much wrong with it.

An elected team can gel just fine. And there's no such thing as an unbiased person. And it's ignorant to pretend that this is about 'hating a CD.' But what's sadder is that you make these careless accusations and two people immediately applaud the hell out of your post. Also, I'm not sure how elections all of the sudden lead to being railroaded? Nor how an appointed CD is somehow no less susceptible to being railroaded. That's definitely more faulty logic.

Shannon Apple wrote:Some of you who are for elections have never worked on any kind of team online, so you have no idea how things work from the backend. It is a very different ball game when you are on the other side of the fence tying to please everyone but knowing full well that whatever decision you make is going to end up with one side in that particular scuffle being butthurt. Electing people will not make clan people nicer. You lot are ruthless and unforgiving of the staff who do so much for CC. Although, I speak of probably a handful of people when I say that.

That's your assumption that people who are for elections are somehow less enlightened than yourself. And the point of elections isn't just to find a team that you think works oh so perfectly together. Competing visions is not a bad thing. In fact, they foster debate among the clans.

I have learned from experience not to get into an argument with you Viper, so I won't. tl:dr

Everything in my post stands. It was not a whimsical speech. I was speaking purely from what is almost 10 years of experience working as site staff across a few different sites, my current one being for the past 5 years.

VioIet wrote:I remember about two years ago, people were really upset about peantusdad (who I think was an outstanding leader, btw) being appointed instead of nominated in. I don't know all the details, so please excuse my ignorance on the subject matter. I don't even know for sure what position it was, I just remember many people saying that there should have been a voting process. I was extremely new to the clan scene at the time, and I didn't follow it closely. I just remember there being a lot of uproar about it, and after enough time, someone did step up and make a voting poll of some sort. Interestingly, I think people voted in peanutsdad anyway. In fact, I think it was unanimous. I think people were just more concerned with having some sort of say in things, maybe more so than who was in that position.

Once he had to step down, a long time later, we all voted/nominated again, but as time went on, the idea seem to fade away. I've never heard it mentioned again since then.

Exactly, Violet. If we were starting the clan system from scratch, people would want voting to ensure fairness. But, once things get established and someone brings up the idea of voting, then those same people claim the idea is preposterous cos they're weary about losing whatever power they've brokered and losing their big piece of the pie. It's sad; but that truly does seem to be the reality.

VioIet wrote:But the reason I brought that up is that when you have enough people who strongly feel a certain way and want to take action, them something will be done. Numbers bring power.

Viper, if we're the only two people (posting) who feel that some type of voting system would be more fair, then, well, I don't think we're going to get very far.

Agreed. And despite my bold objections to various arguments; I do think that perhaps ultimately it will be a lost cause without a critical mass. It is sad that so many people were willing to scream at the top of their lungs during perceived injustices. But, those same people don't seem to be here now during more tranquil times. I reckon that's human nature to shout at problems one day and then not want to do the work to fix the system the next day. But, then again, at least some of those objectors may not even be aware of this discussion.

I'll ultimately be relatively fine with whatever the community decides. But, I want to fight for a great cause now and if it fails then such is life.

VioIet wrote:It's a good skill to know when to keep fighting a battle and when to just hang it up. Or not necessarily hang it up, but maybe try to figure a different way to go about it.

I mean, I think a voting system sounds perfectly reasonable. But if many people don't feel that way, then oh well, I guess.

LOL - Not my best skill for sure.

And voting is perfectly reasonable; which makes it utterly pathetic that so many posters pretend the idea is preposterous.

I've fought the fight for transparency and inclusion. But, it would seem that there's too much apathy at this point. And when the next round of chaos starts, I'll understand why and I'll hopefully spin my wheels a little less or not at all.

Shannon Apple wrote:I have learned from experience not to get into an argument with you Viper, so I won't. tl:dr

Everything in my post stands. It was not a whimsical speech. I was speaking purely from what is almost 10 years of experience working as site staff across a few different sites, my current one being for the past 5 years.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

So, you basically want to take pot shots and then not defend the counter, except to take more pot shots and state that you won't be engaging in rational discussion. Got it. As for the tl;dr - my responses were equal in brevity to your original arguments. But, such a response is on par with the rest of your failed logic.

ViperOverLord wrote: But, if the vote is constricted to one clan, one vote in the CDF then that's a limited concern. I think that clan leaders in general want the best man for the job; or at least someone who they feel can perform the job adequately. At the very least, that's going to be an over-riding concern.

I actually think this is a really good idea! One vote per clan.

Bruceswar: I have big news coming out soonishViolet: oh, what big news?Bruceswar: I am leaving KORT to go to RA

ViperOverLord wrote:It is sad that so many people were willing to scream at the top of their lungs during perceived injustices. I reckon that's human nature to shout at problems one day and then not want to do the work to fix the system the next day.

Many times, Team CC positions are filled based on a specific need, especially in task-oriented groups such as TDs, CDs, and Cartos. Viper, how would your elections fill those specific roles with people who have the skills necessary for those tasks? Furthermore, what happens when the entire group is replaced in the same election? Are the current-now-former CDs required to train all the new CDs and then just leave? What if those people who were elected have a poor record on CC and wouldn't get the required approval from other Department Leaders? Are the rest of the members of Team CC just forced to work with people who can't be worked with?

And having a power-hungry mod is fairly rare, and it is possible to get those mods removed. I know of a few that have been. And finding good mods can be hit-and-miss even with the application process. I wouldn't be surprised if an election process makes that even harder. When I add new TDs, I'm happy if 50% of our new hires turn into long-term and reliable TDs. Some people just don't work out for a myriad of reasons (burnout, personal life changes, poor task assignment, etc.), no matter how great of an applicant they are or how eager they are to help.

Night Strike wrote:Many times, Team CC positions are filled based on a specific need, especially in task-oriented groups such as TDs, CDs, and Cartos. Viper, how would your elections fill those specific roles with people who have the skills necessary for those tasks? Furthermore, what happens when the entire group is replaced in the same election? Are the current-now-former CDs required to train all the new CDs and then just leave? What if those people who were elected have a poor record on CC and wouldn't get the required approval from other Department Leaders? Are the rest of the members of Team CC just forced to work with people who can't be worked with?

And having a power-hungry mod is fairly rare, and it is possible to get those mods removed. I know of a few that have been. And finding good mods can be hit-and-miss even with the application process. I wouldn't be surprised if an election process makes that even harder. When I add new TDs, I'm happy if 50% of our new hires turn into long-term and reliable TDs. Some people just don't work out for a myriad of reasons (burnout, personal life changes, poor task assignment, etc.), no matter how great of an applicant they are or how eager they are to help.

+1 You said it so well. This is just a bad bad bad idea that needs to be scraped.

Night Strike wrote:Many times, Team CC positions are filled based on a specific need, especially in task-oriented groups such as TDs, CDs, and Cartos. Viper, how would your elections fill those specific roles with people who have the skills necessary for those tasks? Furthermore, what happens when the entire group is replaced in the same election? Are the current-now-former CDs required to train all the new CDs and then just leave? What if those people who were elected have a poor record on CC and wouldn't get the required approval from other Department Leaders? Are the rest of the members of Team CC just forced to work with people who can't be worked with?

And having a power-hungry mod is fairly rare, and it is possible to get those mods removed. I know of a few that have been. And finding good mods can be hit-and-miss even with the application process. I wouldn't be surprised if an election process makes that even harder. When I add new TDs, I'm happy if 50% of our new hires turn into long-term and reliable TDs. Some people just don't work out for a myriad of reasons (burnout, personal life changes, poor task assignment, etc.), no matter how great of an applicant they are or how eager they are to help.

I'm not stumping for TD's to be elected; though truthfully, I wouldn't see a problem with it. Elections for cartos wouldn't make sense to me as that is a very advanced skill set. I am stumping for CD elections because the CDs have become power brokers within the clan world. That being the case, I think it is important for the clan world to have greater say in who administers the system.

You could stagger CD elections if a full turnover was a big enough concern.

If someone is elected, then why would they have a 'poor record.' That doesn't make much sense to me; nor do I even know how you define a poor record.

If a Team CC member doesn't want to work with another CC member that is his or her problem and imo he/she should resign. I question why you would want someone in power who is potentially so averse to people who are voted to serve by their own peers. And if that exists, then that only speaks to the elitism I speak of, that should not be catered to.

The other problems you speak of are problems that will exist irrespective of the selection process.

Lindax wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:It is sad that so many people were willing to scream at the top of their lungs during perceived injustices. I reckon that's human nature to shout at problems one day and then not want to do the work to fix the system the next day.

Is that why you didn't apply for a CD position?

Lx

So, you ask me publicly if I applied for the CD position. I answer you in good faith that I believe it would have been an exercise in futility (but that I had recruited members of my own clan to fulfill the position), and yet you still elect to take this cheap shot? I guess if that's how you want to operate.

Last edited by ViperOverLord on Thu Sep 19, 2013 11:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

angola wrote:Let's hold a straw poll about whether or not the community wants Viper elected as a CD.

I'll vote first: No.

This is the problem with the system as it stands. There are a bunch of entitled members who think its okay to personally diminish well intentioned people who dare to seek positive changes in the system.

angola wrote:Let's hold a straw poll about whether or not the community wants Viper elected as a CD.

I'll vote first: No.

This is the problem with the system as it stands. There are a bunch of entitled members who think its okay to personally diminish well intentioned people who dare to seek positive changes in the system.

You do not understand clearly. Nobody is entitled. Everybody has good ideas and such. Just because someone cannot get on team X or Y does not make the people who are there now bad. Think about your clan for a second. If someone is applying who might be a good player and have some fresh ideas, but he does not mesh with many in the clan are you going to bring him in? I think not.

To be a TD, CD, Carto or any other mod, you need 3 things.

1. a Skill set of some sort. 2. Lots of extra time to donate to mod duties.3. A very thick skin to not get ruffled when things get heated.

angola wrote:Let's hold a straw poll about whether or not the community wants Viper elected as a CD.

I'll vote first: No.

This is the problem with the system as it stands. There are a bunch of entitled members who think its okay to personally diminish well intentioned people who dare to seek positive changes in the system.

Well, it was a joke. But I don't think you seek to bring positive changes to the system. I think you just like to "hear" yourself talk.

Leehar, you're right about me leaving out some CD's. I couldn't remember everyone. I did remember jpcloet, but that was a long time ago, so was trying to remember more recent history.

I don't think VOL is being out of line or is misintentioned. He's just trying to think of a way that the clan world can have a little more...stability? transparency?

I'm not sure I agree with electing CD's, because of the obstacles that it can present, but maybe it could be a situation where the current CD's choose the new CD's and then they must be approved by a majority vote in the CDF. Something more similar to how judges are appointed and approved.

I don't have strong feelings either way, but I do think that part of what VOL is presenting has some merit.

Night Strike wrote:Many times, Team CC positions are filled based on a specific need, especially in task-oriented groups such as TDs, CDs, and Cartos. Viper, how would your elections fill those specific roles with people who have the skills necessary for those tasks? Furthermore, what happens when the entire group is replaced in the same election? Are the current-now-former CDs required to train all the new CDs and then just leave? What if those people who were elected have a poor record on CC and wouldn't get the required approval from other Department Leaders? Are the rest of the members of Team CC just forced to work with people who can't be worked with?

And having a power-hungry mod is fairly rare, and it is possible to get those mods removed. I know of a few that have been. And finding good mods can be hit-and-miss even with the application process. I wouldn't be surprised if an election process makes that even harder. When I add new TDs, I'm happy if 50% of our new hires turn into long-term and reliable TDs. Some people just don't work out for a myriad of reasons (burnout, personal life changes, poor task assignment, etc.), no matter how great of an applicant they are or how eager they are to help.

Yeah, I dunno. There are maybe 3 voices in this subforum who never agree with anything that the CDs do, like EVER. Those voices are the loudest. I still think electing mods is a bad idea for the reasons I stated. I didn't post more on this at the time because unlike some folk, I don't do circle arguments and say the same thing over and over like a broken record.

Reading Nightstrike's post compelled me to post because I agree with him, absolutely 100%. This is what I meant by gelling as a team. You can't just throw people together and expect them to work together as a team. It just doesn't work that way. Even when selecting moderators who seem level headed, down to earth and nice people, they sometimes end up doing nothing despite their good intentions. The team should have every right to remove these kind of people and add someone else without the painstaking task of getting all the clans to agree. If they do nothing, they just need to go. Doing that with elected people would be an issue because the very people who are fighting for this would say that they wanted to remove them just because they are elected.

There are some here I think that maybe believe that they are entitled to a CD position? Just maybe? It requires people who do not fly off the handle easily, can accept when they are wrong, can listen to other people's opinions and take them on board, are not hungry for power, can make unbiased decisions when the need arises, and if they can't, ask another mod to deal with that particular person. You need to be able to take a hell of a lot of abuse. Clan section on CC is probably the worse I have ever seen for abusing mods. You guys have chased away so many decent people who would still be doing a good job. That's gotta scare a lot of good people out of wanting to take on that task. People who push their opinions on others with severe intent do not make good moderators either.

Also this:

Bruceswar wrote:To be a TD, CD, Carto or any other mod, you need 3 things.

1. a Skill set of some sort. 2. Lots of extra time to donate to mod duties.3. A very thick skin to not get ruffled when things get heated.

Building on what Shannon said about the team aspect of things. Just like with anything in life you are much better off in a job or in a role on a sports team or something, if you and your co workers, teammates, etc work well together. You can have super all star talent, but if you do not work well together then you will not get much done. Having been head clan director I can tell you this. Clans are a ruthless bunch and your team better be ready to battle everybody. Your team also better be on the same page. Finding people with extra time, can be really hard. Find people with extra time, willing to work, and have a thick skin can be near impossible at times.

As stated voting is such a bad idea on so many levels. If this were to happen, then you will see a clear drop in service.

ow well might as well make my first post back in here.. and will be the only 1.(this is not a dig at clan mods or anyone just my thought on this matter)

i think vipers idea has been lost he didn't want a random voting offering players like what this has been saying. i think what he wanted has been lost in all of this.

ok so the ask of what was needed didn't really say loads i think when a position comes up they should state all that is needed. then list all applicants, after that the mod departments check to see if they can or cannot do what is needed, if they can they short list them if they cannot then they get dropped. the people who make it then go to the vote of the clan leaders (or other sections).

my reason for thinking this is because since i have been on this site i have been told it is a community and not a regular site, but the issuing of mod status is not done like this. a community is like people deciding who should look after them, getting to vote for who they want to represent them this is not happening in the present format. what is happening is for an example of the uk. Just now the government in charge of the uk could pick who was in the representative of all areas , meaning they would never lose this takes the power of the public community away from us. if this is the case then take the community name off of this site when it is Google'd.

so what if departments don't agree 100 percent that is what is needed especially within the clan section because some clans agree some don't and a perfect example was the set up for ccup that caused outrage among several clans. with the lowest majority getting what they wanted, and the vast majority not. what is needed in this area especially is not a section that is all buddy buddy and have the same ideas but people that can get on together but from both sides of what the increasing size of the clan world wants. Then i think when decisions are made there can be no arguments. especially if the vote within the clan section mods are posted not with names but the final vote.

this is only my input on this if you agree you agree if you don't you don't. but i think this is what is needed, not a private group(cdf) where the current structure and votes is ignored because it not what 5 or 6 people (clan mods) want and this is only said after the events of ccup5.